Courtney is professor emeritus in political studies and a senior policy fellow at the Johnson-Shoyama Graduate School of Public Policy at the University of Saskatchewan.

One of the reasons Canadian constitutional conventions are commonly misunderstood is because politicians often do a bad job of explaining them.

Elizabeth May is no exception.

Take her statement that in the event of a minority Parliament following the Oct. 19 election she will “immediately call the Governor General and ask him to give the opposition parties a first chance to form government.”

Her point is that opposition parties controlling a majority of the seats in the Commons would try to convince the Governor General that one of them should immediately get a chance to form a government. She claims this is “constitutionally sound.”

It is nothing of the sort. May’s declaration may be good political grandstanding, but it reveals little understanding of the constitutional convention that governs the early days (or weeks) of a newly elected “minority Parliament.”

To begin with, the Governor General accepts advice from one person, and one person only – the Prime Minister. The Governor General will not become involved in what is essentially a political decision among the newly elected members in the early days of a minority Parliament.

There are two alternative scenarios that could conceivably come into play in the event no party wins a majority.

First, should Stephen Harper find he has been returned with more seats than any other in a minority Parliament, he has the option of tendering his and his government’s resignation or of meeting the Commons to decide his government’s fate. In a word, he carries on as Prime Minister until such time as he resigns or is defeated.

Following a government’s resignation or defeat, the Governor General would call upon the leader of another party – normally the one with the next largest number of seats – to form a government. A new government could be either a coalition composed of two or more parties or a single party governing with the support (possibly spelled out in a formal agreement) of another party or other parties.

The Saskatchewan provincial election of 1929 speaks to that point.

The Liberal government of Jimmy Gardiner was reduced to a minority in that election, although with 28 seats the party won more seats than any in opposition. The Conservatives won 24 seats, the Progressives five, and there were six Independents.

The Legislature convened within weeks, and the Liberals were defeated on the first vote in the House. The lieutenant-governor called on the Conservatives to form a government, which carried on for five years with the support of the Progressives.

(One version of the Saskatchewan experience in 1929 had Winston Churchill, who was speaking in Regina soon after the election, advising Gardiner to meet the legislature and let it decide his fate.)

Whether the Churchill story is true or not, it ought to be, for it reinforces an important point that politicians, the press and the public often overlook: Voters elect MPs and MLAs, not governments. It is the elected members in the House who decide who governs.

Second, should Harper be returned to a minority Parliament with fewer seats than one or more of the other parties, he could choose to stay on and test his government’s support in the House. The likelihood of him opting to do that would be slight, given the public and media outcry his “clinging to power” would provoke. Almost certain defeat in the House would await the government in an early test of confidence.

But this option is nonetheless available to the government, with one example from Canadian history to support such a choice.

The Liberal government of Mackenzie King had been returned to office in the 1925 election with 100 seats, 15 fewer than the opposition Conservatives. With 22 seats, the Progressives held the balance of power. Supported by the Progressives, the King Government survived for several months until, faced with a scandal, King resigned.

The Conservatives then were asked by the governor general to form a government. They did, but survived only three days before they were defeated. A new election was held and the Liberals won, this time with a majority.

The point of all of this is that constitutional conventions regarding government formation are complex and need to be meticulously and accurately explained when the occasion demands. Politicians in the heat of a campaign sometimes get the facts straight. Sometimes they don’t.

This Week's Flyers

Comments

We encourage all readers to share their views on our articles and blog posts. We are committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion, so we ask you to avoid personal attacks, and please keep your comments relevant and respectful. If you encounter a comment that is abusive, click the "X" in the upper right corner of the comment box to report spam or abuse. We are using Facebook commenting. Visit our FAQ page for more information.